I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out the game on a display terminal at my local EB and the shoulder button jumping really threw me for a loop. Unfortunately my fiancee has put a lock on my gaming spending until I beat Fallout, Fable and Dead Space so Mirrors Edge is not going to be a pick up anytime soon. Despite how much awesome fun First Person Free Running is.

There isn't really a lot to say about this game. I have only played the demo however from what i have read, there isn't a lot more to it. A very clean looking game and very well executed but lacking in diversity. For a game so heavily focused on "flow" it is overall, a very jarring experience. It will interesting to see if any another game developers follow on from the Mirror's Edge first person experience.

Been playing this for a week now, gotta say....not impressed. Every level makes me feel like a games tester who's job it is to test gap distance between stuff, right before the developers put crowds, playability and 'fun stuff' in! Assassins Creed is a lot older and is busting with content compared to this, don't get me wrong, the IP is nice enough, but any game where the starting level is played in EXACTLY the same way as the middle & the end of the game....needs a LOT of work.

Fangface74:Assassins Creed is a lot older and is busting with content compared to this, don't get me wrong, the IP is nice enough, but any game where the starting level is played in EXACTLY the same way as the middle & the end of the game....needs a LOT of work.

I'm sorry, did I really just read that correctly? Ok, the game starts off the same in that you run toward a goal, fight a little, run away again and that's one chapter usually. But please do tell me when this has not been the case in Assassin's Creed? Even more so in AC because you had a requirement of at least two mini-games to fill for information gathering which got real boring real fast. At least Mirror's Edge kept it a little fresh with ever-changing colour environments and new puzzles. And about the start of the level being the same in every chapter in Mirror's Edge; Did you really play the same kind of Assassin's Creed I played because I remember having to run down a damn hill and out of a village every time I started a new assassination.

Don't get me wrong I like both games but don't use Assassin's Creed to state an opinion on another game youu think is repetitive, unless you use it as THE example for repetitive levels.

My main complain about Mirrors Edge is that sometimes you have to use weapons. In a game like Mirrors Edge where you have to run this is a bit annoying. Faith should not be a murder.

I don't think that Mirrors Edge is something special but it is fun and that's the most important thing in a game.

Actually, one of the things I really appreciated in the game was that you could play without ever firing a shot. True, it makes some sections a bit more difficult, but with a slightly different mental approach - take on enemies one at a time, divide and conquer - it's absolutely doable.

My main complain about Mirrors Edge is that sometimes you have to use weapons. In a game like Mirrors Edge where you have to run this is a bit annoying. Faith should not be a murder.

I don't think that Mirrors Edge is something special but it is fun and that's the most important thing in a game.

Actually, one of the things I really appreciated in the game was that you could play without ever firing a shot. True, it makes some sections a bit more difficult, but with a slightly different mental approach - take on enemies one at a time, divide and conquer - it's absolutely doable.

I concur 100%. It's really nice to see a major game give you the option of playing in a non-violent, or at least non-lethal way.

I don't know but this game doesn't tickle me. They said they added the arms and feet tickling in for the effect but in fact it totally breaks the effect. It's like watching through a window somebody is waving cutout boards from the side. And besides I'm a die hard hater of LOF ( leap of faith ). Like often: good idea ( I like the idea, really ) but poor execution. Graphic style is good though, cartoony, but that alone doesn't save it. One of the games which requires somebody else to pick up the idea and bring it to the end it once had been envisions before missing the (jump-)target by a mile.

Not to sound rude (so, sorry if I end up sounding as such) or arrogant (Same as before), but I didn't have that much trouble with the game. Beat it in about 6 hours after I got it (on normal). Going through it again now to get all the bags and such that I missed. Were you playing with the small aiming reticle dot thing turned off? Turn it on of you have been. That makes it a lot easier if you've been having trouble with it off.

The plot leaves some to be desired, but hopefully that will change before the end.

Currently running through as a pacifist. It is a tough scenario, one in which channeling my 11 year old self (the one that had to play a platformer game a million times to get through ONE LEVEL) is the one way to continue.

A little more time was given in certain levels would've been great for exploration. However being gunned at while escaping without returning fire is an rare sensation.

Patience wanes with the GEICO cut scenes as well. There wouldn't have been as much of a problem if the composition and timing were at least a little different than those commercials.

Mstrswrd:Not to sound rude (so, sorry if I end up sounding as such) or arrogant (Same as before), but I didn't have that much trouble with the game. Beat it in about 6 hours after I got it (on normal). Going through it again now to get all the bags and such that I missed. Were you playing with the small aiming reticle dot thing turned off? Turn it on of you have been. That makes it a lot easier if you've been having trouble with it off.

I don't take offense at all - if you happen to be better at the game than me, that's awesome! I'm sure that a large portion of the audience will have an experience like yours...but I also guarantee that a large portion of the audience will have an experience like mine.

You are, however, absolutely right about the reticle...playing the game without it is a bad idea.

I must be the only one who doesn't like the protagonist of this game. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, with more realistic features, but there are characteristics about her which really annoy me.

Firstly, her name. The book, Freakonomics, has a lot to answer for, but ever since I read that part of it relating to the names of children, I couldn't help but associate names like Faith, Destiny, etc. with poor - and by extrapolation, usually uneducated - people. Thanks a lot, Steven Levitt!

Secondly, the shoes. I have some very strange things which cause me a great deal of distaste, and footwear which resemble flip-flops, or any footwear which has to be held by the toes, is one of those things. (An example of another distasteful thing to me is fingerprints on screens, a reason why I couldn't buy the iPhone.)

Thirdly, and the most irritating bit of all - that bloody eye tattoo. To me, there's no point making your character realistically attractive if you're going to obscure that with an eye tattoo which causes instant disgust in my eyes.

For these very small and extremely pedantic issues, I will not be purchasing the game.

RAKtheUndead:I must be the only one who doesn't like the protagonist of this game. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, with more realistic features, but there are characteristics about her which really annoy me.

Firstly, her name. The book, Freakonomics, has a lot to answer for, but ever since I read that part of it relating to the names of children, I couldn't help but associate names like Faith, Destiny, etc. with poor - and by extrapolation, usually uneducated - people. Thanks a lot, Steven Levitt!

Secondly, the shoes. I have some very strange things which cause me a great deal of distaste, and footwear which resemble flip-flops, or any footwear which has to be held by the toes, is one of those things. (An example of another distasteful thing to me is fingerprints on screens, a reason why I couldn't buy the iPhone.)

Thirdly, and the most irritating bit of all - that bloody eye tattoo. To me, there's no point making your character realistically attractive if you're going to obscure that with an eye tattoo which causes instant disgust in my eyes.

For these very small and extremely pedantic issues, I will not be purchasing the game.

Those are very pedantic... A characters name, shoes and tattoo.....imagine they are soemthign else

OuroborosChoked:Susan, you know the game was created for the PS3 and then ported to the 360, right?

It seems kind of awkward to me to complain about the controls on the system is wasn't designed for originally.

Why? If you don't plan on getting the PS3 version, it's pretty valuable information that the 360 controls are clunky, don't you think? Or are we simply supposed to say, sure, the poor control choice makes the game less fun than it could be, but heck, it's a port, so let's give it a pass?

OuroborosChoked:Susan, you know the game was created for the PS3 and then ported to the 360, right?

It seems kind of awkward to me to complain about the controls on the system is wasn't designed for originally.

Why? If you don't plan on getting the PS3 version, it's pretty valuable information that the 360 controls are clunky, don't you think? Or are we simply supposed to say, sure, the poor control choice makes the game less fun than it could be, but heck, it's a port, so let's give it a pass?

It could have been made clear that the 360 version was the ported version. (Aren't they usually ported to the PS3 from the 360?)

I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.

Indigo_Dingo:I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.

Indigo_Dingo:I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.

1949 is not the 50s. And the 50s was a time of wild idealism. Hell they thought we'd have (affordable and widespread) flying cars by now and robot butlers, just to name a couple examples. No such luck so far.

Indigo_Dingo:I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.

Indigo_Dingo:I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.